Re: [PATCH] Replace completions with semaphores

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 19:46 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > Yeah, I would open code it.  But this is indeed a sane usage of the
> > counting semaphore because there is no priority inversion.
> 
> But when you open code that, how is it different from just having
> semaphores? 

Because we can then eventually get rid of semaphores, so those people
cannot mistakenly use them. Its just too easy to create prio inversion
with them around.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/